timaeus222

In my case, I actually used a sample library / synthesizer combo (Trilian) without mic balance, but yep, in a case like that, one of the ideal/convenient situations, that's a good approach to thickening up the bass.

Sounds great! I liked when you gradually transitioned from the straight rhythm into the swing rhythm. The only thing I'd say is to check the bell treble. Sounds a bit overly bright or resonant to me.

Actually, I did purposefully mention that I used EQing that was particular to these specific samples, along with the implied notion that your mileage may vary. Groove Bias is definitely not optimal for metal, but it was a good challenge to make it fit. In my opinion though, the original's kick could have been more prominent. I will say though that the original's snare is better, not because of the mixing by itself, but because of the sample AND its mixing. I didn't want to add distortion to the bass since that would scale all of its harmonics, and add miscellaneous bass frequencies to filter out again; more hassle IMO. The bass I used had too much treble and a tiny bit too much bass picking frequencies to begin with, so I filtered that out. Again, dependent on the sample, so what I do here is just example-based, but the important thing is that I explained why, and the why is what you can apply to your own samples.

Yeah, something like that could work. It could make room for the piano, but at the same time still be more audible. However, while simply doubling a mono signal and hard panning both is double tracking, some people may not call it "true" double tracking. "True" double tracking involves two different recordings that are each unique in their takes and their timbres (round robins), and in that sense it's more dynamic than simply doubling a mono track and hard-panning that.

Man, those chords you pull off keep amazing me. You've really got a knack for improv. I'm definitely hearing the source on top, and it's really gelling nicely with the chords you have. The octave shift on the melody at 0:34 is subtle but quite effective. I also really like the syncopation at 1:10! The source usage stays throughout and the source itself is cycled through more than once, but you keep maintaining interest, which is such an important thing to do. The guitar seems to be a bit quiet, to me. It comes in at 1:20, but something you may want to try is to lead into it, and perhaps think of a panning method that makes it more present; it's just my preference, but maybe just panning it widely could really create a full stereo image. The piano's great, and the bass is quite good (a little bit quiet, but still pretty good); the guitar's the weakest link here, IMO. If anything, the arrangement is what really carries this. I know the source usage is enough for this to not get rejected based on that, so I believe the main thing to work on is the production. Overall, if you can make the guitar gel more nicely in the stereo field and bump up the volume on the bass just a bit, this will be quite a strong candidate!

That is exactly what I do sometimes. I get a simple melody in my head in some form, and I improvise while walking around in my room, and when it sounds coolest, I'll sing it again and write that out, tweaking it some more in the MIDI. I come up with the bottom notes of each chords in the implied progression by singing a bass line to the melody, and then from there it gets much easier to create the chord progression. It's already outlined, and it just takes some trial-and-error, even if you don't know music theory, like me.

Ah, okay, like if you said one envelope for the main filter and one envelope for, say, oscillator sync or something. Makes sense! Could be meticulous, but makes sense!

There *are* production issues, but if I were to have any say I this I would give this a YES (borderline). The arrangement carries this, even with the mechanical piano, while the production is good *enough*. Harmonies were great, improvisational melodies were great!

NIIIIIIIICE Hope you have a nice DEIA!

I'ma make you blush even moar You were the first major person to help me improve mah music making

Simple answer: take jazz choir and try out for a solo! Just kidding, unless you really want to, as I did. It helped my improvisational abilities with bass lines; I had to develop intuition for chord progressions on my own though. Real answer: Study melodies you deem good and figure out why they're good. Does the rhythm keep you interested? Are there awkward intervals? Does the flow make sense? Does it evoke the quality you want from it? Does it make you grin with its impressiveness? Example of a melody/solo I was especially happy with in the end @ 1:39

Well, I did then learn from you that Reese basses are for more than just Drum & Bass! Dynamics, though, seems like a broad, umbrella term used in place of something more elaborate---you may have meant dynamic flow, which is larger-scale dynamics, but you may have also meant a flat/static or expressive/dynamic quality to the timbre created by its envelope, LFO, or occasionally filter choice. Either one is fine!

Things I noticed: - The dubstep wobble pacing is plodding from the never-changing rhythm - Some elements are too quiet or pushed too far back - This is mixed quietly, aside from some select few elements. - The "snares" at 0:10 came in too late. It's off the rhythm and playing in between a down beat and its next up beat. - The snare at 0:14 sounds like it's clipping the track, or it has a little too much distortion that it sounds like actual clipping. Not bad, but the textures could use some more nuance and the mixing could be more calculated/purposeful.

I agree with Gario on each point, and I would place the harmony repetition at the highest priority here as well. There's room for improvement, but ultimately it's not bad. Things that could be improved on though, some of which would help significantly: - The piano in the intro is acting as the lead, and it's actually a little bit too distant. It seems like your intention for a distant piano there, but I feel like it's pushed a tiny bit too far back. - At 0:46, bells cover up the piano a little bit, but at the same time, expose that its high end isn't super prevalent in the original sample. You may need a better sample. Here are some free ones that I personally like. You'll need reverb, but otherwise, they're actually quite good, for free soundfonts! - At 1:29, the piano feels narrow in comparison to the pads. Some minor stereo widening on the piano could enhance the expansiveness of that section overall. - At 2:12, the piano is a little bit mechanical in its note lengths. It seems like each note ends approximately where the next note starts, while in real life a pianist's previous note overlaps with the next note for a few milliseconds. It may also help, if you haven't done so already, to vary the note's "start-time"---when the note starts relative to the quantization grid. Since humans don't play rigidly, that adds a human, random element. - At 2:55, the piano is quite buried, and it's playing the melody. This is where the overly loud choir is most detrimental to the source usage. - At 3:37, the woodwind is a bit buried, but not as much as the piano was earlier. - At 4:19, the piano is buried to a similar extent as at 2:55. - The fade-out ending didn't bother me that much. It's not helpful to the arrangement, but ultimately it isn't enough basis for a rejection by itself. I feel like any sort of NO (resubmit) would come mostly from the piano's mixing and sequencing, as well as the chord progression overall.

In my personal opinion, the reese isn't super powerful, but it's an intermediate power in my own personal hierarchy that goes basic wobble < reese-like < bitcrushed FM/comb < FM/comb. It's what I would describe as "transparent", for which if I try to visualize what it represents, it would look like something I can see through. It's still pretty good, though, and with some refinement on the strength of the overall harmonics it can be even stronger. Truth be told, dubstep isn't all wobbles. There are also what I like to call drifters, scrapers, and... yes, I'm going to say "dancers". Can't really clarify these without examples! Drifters travel through the stereo field as essentially wobbles with longer LFOs or just a long envelope instead. Example @ ~1:05.5 Scrapers do what their name says: they are essentially scraping your ears with their heaviness, and can be accomplished in some uncommon cases where oscillator sync on an FM bass actually works out this way. Example 1 @ 0:57 Example 2 @ 1:49 Dancers is a little bit weird of a description, but they sound like they're dancing and surrounding your ears. A little more straight forward to make, but possibly a result of meticulous glitching techniques centered on controlled gating that has a longer-than-usual release. Example @ 1:57 In my humble opinion, this is a fantastic representation of the diversity of dubstep basses (dubstep basses start at 0:49). They don't have to be dark. They can be playful too! 2:06 is the best part, IMO. (Pay attention to the pattern that is in this track; the wobbles usually show up on the second and fourth up beats)

I'm gonna try to find time for this. Should be fun to try full dubstep for the first time.

Another thing about dubstep basses is that there are some "pitfalls" that many people do, which turns at least me off in those particular cases: - Too much resonance --- it's gonna hurt, and you get why. - Siren-like timbres, but that's just personal taste. - Using the same one over and over again at a plodding rhythm --- variety helps keep attention as you well know. You could glitch up the bass perhaps, vary the cutoff filter envelope length or LFO rate, etc. - Tiny little missed details such as harsh treble from excess distortion or harsh treble resonances from bitcrushing (I personally am not bothered by non-excessive bitcrushing) --- minor nitpicks, but it couldn't hurt to be detailed. It also allows hi hats to come through, as a benefit. Some things you could try while experimenting: - With FM, it helps to slightly detune the input oscillator that came previously in the serial oscillator layout and use multiple voices for a thicker timbre. - With comb filters, if you have one, depending on the sound you currently have, it may thicken the sound to detune the comb filter. explains the comb filter pretty well (I'm actually learning more about it that I didn't know).

You j00jes caught up with 3 months of stuff in a month. Not good enough.

I've found that the really rich, gritty, unforgiving basses are made with FM synthesis or comb filters. Waveshaping/Distortion really adds to the raw meatiness of the sound, while occasionally (but not always), oscillator sync adds a sort of "scraping" effect to the sound. Maybe this could help give you ideas for techniques you can reapply.

Whoo! This was fun, actually.

You're using an acoustic kick with an electronic clap in an ambient track. That's why it's not clicking. The rhythm also sounds awkward to me. It's hip-hop-ish in 6/4, and for a long time. It's cool for a while, then it gets plodding. Just a thought.

I'm grateful too, for this opportunity. This is motivating me to work on my album until I'm completely satisfied with it!

I should be home at 8:30PM on your side (in 1.5 hours hopefully), and we'll have 3.5 hours to get it done and submitted. We don't have to get a length of 3 mins; that's just my own ideal. ~2:30 is fine and doable.

From this, it seems like your polyphony is limited by your settings on Garageband? Or a VST?